BAEby, oil luv U(K)
The Serious Fraud Office has just announced it is to drop its investigations into the Al-Yamamah Saudi arms deal bribery, and already my ears are ringing with cries of sleaze from both ends of the political spectrum. "Britain - The New Banana Republic" bellows the Times; "Blackmailed By Dictators" screeches the Guardian. Two campaign groups have hired a QC to mount a legal challenge.
They have a point. Tony Blair was elected on a promise to clean up corruption. He promised the Labour government would have an 'ethical' foreign policy. He made international bribery an offence in 2002 (the very law the current investigation hinges on). Lord Goldsmith promised nothing would stand in the way of the SFO's investigation. And yet he, on Blair's advice, still killed the investigation off. There is (apparently) clear evidence of bribery and fraud on a massive scale. So why should we be happy that Goldsmith has called off the dogs?
The original deal struck with the Saudis in the 80s (basically a swap of British armaments for Saudi oil) has been worth a staggering £40bn to us over the past two decades and the deal currently being jeopardised by the investigation is worth a huge £6bn. Sadly the deals have been greased along with bribery to the tune of tens of millions of pounds. The SFO's investigation into this is likely to sour these trade relations, with Saudi royals and government officials unlikely to be pleased at being called into court to discuss backhanders and callgirls.
Worsening trade relations with Saudi Arabia would mean a squeeze on Britain's oil supplies at a terrible time. China has its claws into most oil suppliers, particularly emerging ones in Africa, so we need to hold onto as many established sources as possible. Our other big source of oil - Russia - is freely using its oil as a tool to put political pressure on customer countries, having already cut off supplies to neighbours such as the Ukraine and openly stolen back the Sakhalin reserves from Shell. And with the recent pollonium poisonings, diplomatic relations between the UK and Russia are strained - this is not the time to be handing them a stick with which to beat us.
But the collapse of this deal would mean more than a debilitating squeeze on the UK's energy supplies. The UK would be a double loser as this deal involves us offloading a surplus of jets we'd ordered but don't need any more. The loss of revenue flowing into the UK would be huge. The job losses at BAE and its suppliers could run into the tens of thousands. Britain would lose its position as a world leader in making things to blow people up (I know this doesn't sound desirable, but rather us than Russia).
And even if Saudi dignitaries and BAE executives were hauled before a judge and punished for their misdemeanors, the outcome would not be a transparent global arms trade free from corruption and backhanders. The Sauds - and other cash rich dictators looking for killing machines to spunk their wedge on - would simply trade with countries with less strictly puritanical attitudes to the arms trade. Such as France.
The Cabinet and Lord Goldsmith have done the right thing in securing Britain's oil supplies (for now) and safeguarding thousands of jobs. In an ideal world, the fat hypocrites running Saudi Arabia and the people in BAE who caved into their bribery demands would be brought to justice for their crimes. But in an ideal world, British cars would run on pompous armchair moralising, British homes would be heated by shrill leftwing histrionics and BAE's workers would be fed and clothed with condemnations of an excellent government. It's a shame they can't, because it's one resource we don't need to worry about running out of.
They have a point. Tony Blair was elected on a promise to clean up corruption. He promised the Labour government would have an 'ethical' foreign policy. He made international bribery an offence in 2002 (the very law the current investigation hinges on). Lord Goldsmith promised nothing would stand in the way of the SFO's investigation. And yet he, on Blair's advice, still killed the investigation off. There is (apparently) clear evidence of bribery and fraud on a massive scale. So why should we be happy that Goldsmith has called off the dogs?
The original deal struck with the Saudis in the 80s (basically a swap of British armaments for Saudi oil) has been worth a staggering £40bn to us over the past two decades and the deal currently being jeopardised by the investigation is worth a huge £6bn. Sadly the deals have been greased along with bribery to the tune of tens of millions of pounds. The SFO's investigation into this is likely to sour these trade relations, with Saudi royals and government officials unlikely to be pleased at being called into court to discuss backhanders and callgirls.
Worsening trade relations with Saudi Arabia would mean a squeeze on Britain's oil supplies at a terrible time. China has its claws into most oil suppliers, particularly emerging ones in Africa, so we need to hold onto as many established sources as possible. Our other big source of oil - Russia - is freely using its oil as a tool to put political pressure on customer countries, having already cut off supplies to neighbours such as the Ukraine and openly stolen back the Sakhalin reserves from Shell. And with the recent pollonium poisonings, diplomatic relations between the UK and Russia are strained - this is not the time to be handing them a stick with which to beat us.
But the collapse of this deal would mean more than a debilitating squeeze on the UK's energy supplies. The UK would be a double loser as this deal involves us offloading a surplus of jets we'd ordered but don't need any more. The loss of revenue flowing into the UK would be huge. The job losses at BAE and its suppliers could run into the tens of thousands. Britain would lose its position as a world leader in making things to blow people up (I know this doesn't sound desirable, but rather us than Russia).
And even if Saudi dignitaries and BAE executives were hauled before a judge and punished for their misdemeanors, the outcome would not be a transparent global arms trade free from corruption and backhanders. The Sauds - and other cash rich dictators looking for killing machines to spunk their wedge on - would simply trade with countries with less strictly puritanical attitudes to the arms trade. Such as France.
The Cabinet and Lord Goldsmith have done the right thing in securing Britain's oil supplies (for now) and safeguarding thousands of jobs. In an ideal world, the fat hypocrites running Saudi Arabia and the people in BAE who caved into their bribery demands would be brought to justice for their crimes. But in an ideal world, British cars would run on pompous armchair moralising, British homes would be heated by shrill leftwing histrionics and BAE's workers would be fed and clothed with condemnations of an excellent government. It's a shame they can't, because it's one resource we don't need to worry about running out of.
Labels: Al Yamamah, arms industry, arms trade, BAE, bribery, corruption, Lord Goldsmith, Saudi Arabia, slush fund, Tony Blair
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home